by Wilson Tong
As a member of the Undergraduate Assembly, Penn’s elected branch of student government, I strive to ensure the accurate representation of the interests of the entire undergraduate student body to the University community and administration. This past Sunday, a proposal — not on the official agenda — that surfaced from objections to University funding and support of Norman Finklestein’s appearance on campus was presented to the UA only hours before the meeting. An attempt to suspend the agenda rules to force the UA to debate and vote on the unexpected proposal failed. The outcome of the UA’s process to add this proposal to the previously established agenda has since triggered much frustration and disappointment.
Many are arguing that the UA did not succeed in representing the concerns of a portion of the student body. However, I contend that this is not the case. A vote on the proposal, which was fundamentally politically-charged and politically-loaded, would have ultimately forced the UA to take an official for/against stance on the University’s backing of one controversial individual’s appearance on campus, which the UA decided not to do within its purview. At its core, the UA would have had to issue an official opinion on a religious and cultural disagreement. I was not elected to take a stance on a religiously- and culturally-politicized issue, and I do not believe I would have honestly represented the student body if I had. Furthermore, forcing the UA to discuss and vote on the proposal would have undermined the credibility and legitimacy of the UA as an impartial, representative body of all undergraduate students.
The content of the proposal, presenting only one of many sides of the argument, would not have allowed members of the UA to make an informed and unbiased vote on an extremely divisive, yet obviously significant issue. It is wrong, irresponsible, and unwise for the UA to initiate and engage in a formal debate and vote about a proposal that presents one-sided and limited information and only would or would not have been supported by secondary information, hearsay, and opinions, rather than an objective and comprehensive set of facts. The UA meeting is positively a place for free speech and open discussion. On the other hand, a UA vote can only occur on those topics that the UA can address within its ability, right, and jurisdiction deemed appropriate for, beneficial to, the entire undergraduate student body.
I believe that the role of the UA fundamentally entails serving the undergraduate student body as a whole, addressing issues that behoove the entire student body. Making official stances, either directly or indirectly, on highly-politicized, highly-religious, and highly-cultural topics is not why I was elected to serve on the UA. However, I was elected to listen and to act accordingly, and that is what I did. I listened, and I acted accordingly.
I believe that the UA seeks to unify the student body and not to divide.
Wilson Tong is a College and Wharton sophomore from Cheltenham, Pa. He is also the Chair of the Facilities and Campus Planning Committee of the Undergraduate Assembly
An RSS feed of The Spin is available
March 20th, 2007 at 5:29 am
If a Klansman were invited to speak on campus, denying slavery, you would not have been silent.
You have lost my vote, Wilson Tong.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Finkelstein never denied the holocaust and isn’t anti-semitic by any means. You know it. I know it. Stop being a f**king liar. If you seriously don’t know, then do your research.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Regardless of Finkelstein’s political/historical position, it is the job of organizations like to UA who bring in speakers to spark debate among the student population. I applaud them for not caving to a portion of the student population which disagrees with the speaker, and allowing the talk. In my eyes they have done their job and created an open forum for discussion of a highly charged subject, one ignored much of the time due to heightened emotions surrounding the topics. The invitation to speak is not a nod of approval, it is acknowledgment of a topic worthy of discussion.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am
The UA wastes enough of its time on issues that it has no authority over or relevance to. Tong just got my vote.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:18 am
bravo. It’s nice to see that some of the UA’s complacency is not for naught. in this case, they did the right thing.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Finkelstein is not a klansmen. So the first comment is null and void. Furthermore it’s not the UA’s position to challenge dept sponsored speakers. If people want to protest, let the speaker come to Penn and then allow the protest. Don’t stop thousands of students from hearing a noted academic speak just because a minority don’t agree with his/her viewpoint.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
You’re getting it all wrong- the issue was not to prevent speakers from coming to campus. The groups only wanted the UA to DISCUSS the issue of how departments choose to fund these speakers, whether their decisions are based on a value/criterion system, and whether that system should be reassessed. This issue is entirely within the purview of the UA because, unlike Mr. Tong posits, it does tangibly affect students. Moreover, the fact that there was a 2.5 hour debate whether to even debate the resolution itself clearly indicates that people are steamed up over an issue, an issue that should be addressed by a body elected to represent the very students who showed up at the meeting (all 65 of them). No one’s saying Finkelstein shouldn’t come, what they’re saying is a University department should perhaps reconsider its choice to sponsor him. And that suggestion is neither unreasonable nor outside the boundaries of the UA, which, though it professes to be afraid of politically-charged issues, should realize that tension is part of the job description.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
“In my eyes they have done their job and created an open forum for discussion of a highly charged subject, one ignored much of the time due to heightened emotions surrounding the topics.”
how do you come to that conclusion when they stifled the free speech of those who assembled at their meeting? how did they create an open forum for discussion?
furthermore, Mr. Tong has a fundamental flaw in one of his arguments in that he calls the debate highly-religious, which it was not. The debate was centered on the student body’s ability to make its views known, not any religious conflict.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
it doesn’t matter how the proposal is spun…the fundamental issue dealt with Norman Finkelstein and about how many felt negatively about his coming to campus…you can sense that from every article published in the dp…that’s the bottom line